Willard Libby the inventor of radiocarbon dating was stunned when he discovered there are no records of man prior to only a few thousand years.

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stagesÃ¢â‚¬â€dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."- Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

I have not studied the actual layering situation underneath the Burgess Shale, but would like to find a research paper on it.

Those mountains are made of granite, which is floating upward like a cork rather than rising from tectonic uplift. If the theories postulated previously are correct, then I predict that the shale lays directly on a thick layer of heavier sandstone and then limestone on top of the shale.

Perhaps there are some misunderstandings here--I don't think any informed creationist believes that ALL the mountains were pre-existant, so that the flood waters placed fossils on them.Ã‚Â There are two different things at play here.Ã‚Â They would be the nature and speed of the mountain area sedimentation, and tectonic uplift in orogeny.

But I commonly encounter creationists making a claim that the fossils found on top of mountains were deposited there during the flood.

As far as sedimentation, the fact that there are fossils anywhere (let alone mountains)should put the burden of proof on gradualists as to their origin.Ã‚Â Slow sedimentation would not create ichnofossils, nor many other fossils.Ã‚Â The fact that many fossillized body parts are found well preserved in the sedimentary record would also suggest turbid conditions at the time of burial, instead of calm continuous covering of the parts.Ã‚Â If gradual build up was the case, then we should find many more whole skeletons.Ã‚Â

Why would slow sedimentation not create ichnofossils as compared with other fossil types? In my experience they can easily be preserved in rocks that appear to have been deposited during quite slow periods of deposition.

If you want to argue from an "actualist" stance--that the fossil record is mixed with catastrphe and slow times, then I ask why are there common paleo indicators inÃ‚Â the "same age" layers in the geologic record of North America?Ã‚Â Why do they mostly show the same directions for the "same age" strata?Ã‚Â Did water continually run over our continent for hundreds of millions of years in the same direction?Ã‚Â I think not.

I responded months ago in a different thread about how a cited study actually claimed that paleo-current indicators show considerable variability in North America during some time intervals.

Secondly, as far as continuous tectonic uplift in orogeny.Ã‚Â Where is the continuous pressure coming from to move the megatons of hardened rock?Ã‚Â And what caused the unfaulted folds, synclines and anticlines in the mountains and hills?Ã‚Â These things are near the surface, and not subject to heat.Ã‚Â Furthermore, if they were lifted up from the under the surface, why are they not ALL metamorphic.Ã‚Â Many of them are sedimentary in nature, and show no signs of heat being a factor in their folds.Ã‚Â Folding while still wet is the only alternative--can you offer another?Ã‚Â

There is quite a range of stresses in the history of rocks in anticlines, synclines that will sometimes result in extensive faulting or little or none. They are on the surface now, but if they went through an orogeny they would have gone through a history or burial and uplift. Heat flows in the earth's crust are quite variable with the result that metamorphism is variable in occurence. Many sedimentary rocks show partial metamorphism. It may only be noticable in thin-section analysis of the grains.

Laboratory experiments showed long ago the relationship with deformation of rocks are pressure. They either respeond elastically and return to the same shape when the pressure is removed, plastically with permanent deformation such as in folding, or if they deform to a point exceeding the compressive strength of the rocks (which varies) they rupture. In this last case we get fractures and faults. This is basic structural geology that is covered in introductory courses on the subject. Temperature is also a factor affecting how rocks will deform when put under stress. Basically rocks at surface conditions will rupture when stressed. The folding we see in mountains took place when the sediments were buried and subjected to an overburden of pressure.

There can be movement or slip along bedding planes. The thichness of the beds is a factor in the mechanics of folding as well. Different lithologies have different strengths.

That said, tectonics theory has no effective mechanism in orogeny, and it has little evidence of being a player of mountain building in the past.

That is a bold statement and I don't think you have provided anything to really back this up.

Therefore, fossils in mountains, such as the Cambrian deposits in the Burgess shale in the Canadian Rockies, were covered underwater.Ã‚Â No one says the mountains were already there.Ã‚Â They (Candian Rockies) are full of limestone, which gives the possibility of massive pre-existant lime mud depostion during the flood cataclysm.Ã‚Â From some of the limestone I have seen, I would expect to see much unpublicized (unfaulted) folding.Ã‚Â I have not studied the actual layering situation underneath the Burgess Shale, but would like to find a research paper on it.

I think some creationists seem to feel that rocks and their included fossils were deposited by flood waters at the altitude where they are found. So I'm not so sure that some creationists do not feel that the Burgess shale was not deposited in the postion it is now found.

Yes, there are many published accounts of unfaulted limestones, but also many of folded limestones that are also faulted.

But I commonly encounter creationists making a claim that the fossils found on top of mountains were deposited there during the flood.Why would slow sedimentation not create ichnofossils as compared with other fossil types? In my experience they can easily be preserved in rocks that appear to have been deposited during quite slow periods of deposition.

The key word here is appear. Evidence has shown that sedimentation formed quickly from catastrophe looks like it was deposited gradually. Now I know that you are currently discussing ichnofossils, but fossilizationof organic remains requires conditions that prevent decay. Without rapid burial fossilization is as much a miracle as a worldwide flood. I just don't see how one can claim that sedimentary rock is usually slow forming, or why one would decide that multiple unrelated disasters occurred in order to form fossils.

Even fossils derived from land, including dinosaur bones and organisms preserved within amber (fossilised tree resin) were ultimately preserved in sediments deposited beneath water i.e. in wetlands, lakes, rivers, estuaries or swept out to sea.

But I commonly encounter creationists making a claim that the fossils found on top of mountains were deposited there during the flood.

I think some creationists seem to feel that rocks and their included fossils were deposited by flood waters at the altitude where they are found. So I'm not so sure that some creationists do not feel that the Burgess shale was not deposited in the postion it is now found.

I commonly encounter evolutionist who believe in naturalistic abiogenesis and who use Lamarck's theory to describe evolution, so I will choose to ignore the fact that well-educated evolutionists have alternative explanations.

The key word here is appear. Evidence has shown that sedimentation formed quickly from catastrophe looks like it was deposited gradually.

Can you explain this more fully? What evidence is this, and can you show some of it?

Now I know that you are currently discussing ichnofossils, but fossilizationof organic remains requires conditions that prevent decay. Without rapid burial fossilization is as much a miracle as a worldwide flood. I just don't see how one can claim that sedimentary rock is usually slow forming, or why one would decide that multiple unrelated disasters occurred in order to form fossils.

I think the process of fossilization is widely misunderstood. Some fossil material is so resistant to decay that it will often be preserved in many depositional environments whatever the burial rate. A walk on a beach will show you what I mean. Some depositional systems provide anoxic conditions that can lead to fossil preservation with very slow deposition. I don't see it taking a miracle at all to preserve the fossils I have seen in outcrop.

Some sediments accumulate rather rapidly, others rather slowly. Sedimentary rocks are forming at highly variable rates in the present time, and it is reasonable to conclude that rocks with a similar range of characteristics would have formed at variable rates in the earth's past.

AFJ: Therefore, fossils in mountains, such as the Cambrian deposits in the Burgess shale in the Canadian Rockies, were covered underwater. No one says the mountains were already there. They (Candian Rockies) are full of limestone, which gives the possibility of massive pre-existant lime mud depostion during the flood cataclysm. From some of the limestone I have seen, I would expect to see much unpublicized (unfaulted) folding. I have not studied the actual layering situation underneath the Burgess Shale, but would like to find a research paper on it.

geode: I think some creationists seem to feel that rocks and their included fossils were deposited by flood waters at the altitude where they are found. So I'm not so sure that some creationists do not feel that the Burgess shale was not deposited in the postion it is now found.

Yes, there are many published accounts of unfaulted limestones, but also many of folded limestones that are also faulted.

MammaElephant: I commonly encounter evolutionist who believe in naturalistic abiogenesis and who use Lamarck's theory to describe evolution, so I will choose to ignore the fact that well-educated evolutionists have alternative explanations.

I was responding to the comment that "no one thinks the mountains were already there"....yet many creationists I have engaged, who claimed to know their subject have made just this point in terms of fossils and mountains.

I was responding to the comment that "no one thinks the mountains were already there"....yet many creationists I have engaged, who claimed to know their subject have made just this point in terms of fossils and mountains.

It seems to me that he is saying that no one here on this thread is saying that.

This is funny. I have to tell you a bit of my story. I was on a message board looking for science materials for my daughter (homeschooling remember) and called YEC materials laughable because I thought that I had a good idea what they were by what people on the board were saying. I was challenged by a YEC to actually read YEC materials. Wow. I did and then I personally apologized to her. Of course, even when I was an "OEC" I believed in a worldwide flood only a few thousand years ago, so that helps. I just didn't have as much scientific explanation provided to me until I read the YEC materials.

The very first book that I read and every book thereafter that gives models of the flood says that the tops of mountains were once part of the ocean floor (the mountains weren't yet formed when the animals were fossilized). I therefore have to draw the conclusion that you have read very, very little on flood geology or YEC beliefs.

I have been trying to get enough sleep and brain power together to look at biblicalgeology.net and make some sense of it. Maybe when the kids are older and can sleep without my help. When I do though, I will be sure to discuss it here.

Oh, and don't worry, my daughter has lots of secular encyclopedias as a part of her education. I have not used any YEC materials with her... yet.

I have followed the YEC position for decades. I remember when most YECs attacked plate tectonics and tectonic uplift ideas and seemed to hold to the flood covering the mountaintops we see today. As plate tectonics started to enter mainstream geology as a unifying principle and evidence for continental drift mounted, new YEC theories emerged, yet I still commonly run into those who insist that fossils on the top of Mt. Everest were deposited by the flood on surfaces that existed before they were placed there. And that is all that I posted. I did not say that all YECs held to such beliefs. I have read quite a bit of YEC material, and have encountered various alternative theories including "runaway subduction", etc. I think many YECs have not bothered to read the latest ideas. Many YECs have a tendency to criticize mainstream science because new ideas emerge that challenge existing concepts. They rattle on and on about this, but what about "creation scientists" and their changing concepts such as pertaining to when mountains rose?

The problem is that YECs cannot agree on unifying principles in terms of geology. The only unifying thread in YEC thoughts is what is written in the Bible, but interpretation of what is written there seems to vary quite a bit. This should come as no surprise as so little is written in the Bible that possibly describes earth history or the processes by which it was formed. The Bible tells us that the flood covered the highest mountain tops, so we know that mountains existed before the flood or came to rise during the flood. The latter case is not stated in the Bible and a rapid rise of such after the flood is also not recorded.

I have come to the conclusion that not agreeing on something and staying at the point of conjecture is a good thing. I don't like it when anyone accepts something that the evidence (biblical or otherwise) is not clear on and rejects everything else. I feel that traditional science does that quite a bit.

I have come to the conclusion that not agreeing on something and staying at the point of conjecture is a good thing. I don't like it when anyone accepts something that the evidence (biblical or otherwise) is not clear on and rejects everything else. I feel that traditional science does that quite a bit.

I think YEC creationists do this far more commonly than mainstream scientists. This has even been formalized in such things as the statement of faith that the ICR used to have that anything that did not fit in with a literal reading of the Bible had to be rejected outright. there is no such a dogmatic limitation on scientific research outside of creationist circles. Scientific studies that are published and peer-reviewed usually strive to include other viewpoints or explanations for the evidence as part of the background. I find this is far more rare in YEC writings and that they tend to be quite selective in what is included, often ignoring much if not all of the evidence that does not support their conjecture. Quite frankly I think they have to do this to maintain any persuasiveness at all, for the evidence for the major mainstream positions is far better grounded in the evidence.

Again, the speed of light in a vacuum is a physical constant. If you can show that it is not you will have confuted Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Evidence please.

If the speed of light is constant, I challenge anyone who believes that the universe is 15 to 20 billion years old to tell me how this supports the age of the universe and The Big Bang.

I also want to add that anyone who believes that Radiometric dating is accurate is assuming that there are no variables in the rate of decay. Since this doesn't work so well, Scientists have to date the same thing over and over again until they get an answer that is "right." If Radiometric dating is so accurate, someone please explain to me why it is necessary to date an object so many times and why we trust the "right" answer despite all of the wrong answers before hand.

I think YEC creationists do this far more commonly than mainstream scientists. This has even been formalized in such things as the statement of faith that the ICR used to have that anything that did not fit in with a literal reading of the Bible had to be rejected outright. there is no such a dogmatic limitation on scientific research outside of creationist circles. Scientific studies that are published and peer-reviewed usually strive to include other viewpoints or explanations for the evidence as part of the background...

Not really, Creationists are just more straight forward on what their beliefs and biases are then mainstream scientists. That doesn't mean that main stream scientists aren't heavily biased or have a paradigm, they do, just that they try to uphold some halo of objectivity in their claims. As for dogmatic limitations, these clearly exist amongst mainstream scientists. There actual definition of science "finding materialistic explanations for phenomena in nature" does already dictate this. You won't see a main stream scientist acknowledging something from a well known proponent of creation or intelligent design, let alone include their point of view. Evolution is true, that's gospel, no questioning of this fundamental tennet allowed. To the contrary it is Creationist scientists and proponents of intelligent design that frequently quote and discuss the works, results and points of views of Evolutionists in their works.

I think YEC creationists do this far more commonly than mainstream scientists. This has even been formalized in such things as the statement of faith that the ICR used to have that anything that did not fit in with a literal reading of the Bible had to be rejected outright. there is no such a dogmatic limitation on scientific research outside of creationist circles. Scientific studies that are published and peer-reviewed usually strive to include other viewpoints or explanations for the evidence as part of the background. I find this is far more rare in YEC writings and that they tend to be quite selective in what is included, often ignoring much if not all of the evidence that does not support their conjecture. Quite frankly I think they have to do this to maintain any persuasiveness at all, for the evidence for the major mainstream positions is far better grounded in the evidence.

If the evidence supports no God, no resurrection, and therefore no heaven or Hell. Would you concede based on evidence, or would you still believe based on faith?

I find it ironic that you can hedge the fence on faith and imply that it's okay, yet belittle anyone whom would have enough faith, to not hedge the fence, and be an example to others of what true belief and faith really is.

When I stand before God, there is not going to be many questions on why I did not believe in what was written. How about you?

Yec is just a label. And an excuse used to not believe in what is clearly written. Does not the Bible support and say that everything was created in 6 days? Yep. So the problem is not that it's YEC belief, it's because you choose not to have enough faith. Because real judgment is not going to be based on whether anyone was YEC, it's based on what is clearly written. And what's clearly written happens to support YEC.

How is God going to be able to judge what you believe when it's not even written in the Bible? And because it's not supported in the Bible as what to believe, then what is it? I don;t think I have to spell it out for you do I?